Conditions May Change Before November-- But Likely, Every Change Will Be Worse For Trump, Not Better

Every pollster or prognosticator who concludes that Trump has no path to victory says something to the effect of "but it's a long time until November 3 and things can change." Well, things will change. You don't have to be Nostradamus to figure out that if Trump keeps doing what he's been doing or his whole life, Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Mississippi will eventually be battleground states. Yes, things change but there is no reason to imagine that they will change in favor of Trump and the GOP. Every indication is that they will change in favor of the Democrats.

Did Trump lose some libertarians who, cluelessly, still support him by sending some kind of brutal secret police force into Portland to scoop up peaceful protesters?

How about Republicans who might possibly be confused by the Regime attempting to block billions of dollars for contact tracing, additional testing and other coronavirus mitigation efforts-- and by blocking funding for the CDC? Will they vote for him anyway? Or Republicans reading yesterday's Wall Street Journal story about how masks matter? "Face masks are emerging as one of the most powerful weapons to fight the novel coronavirus, with growing evidence that facial coverings help prevent transmission-- even if an infected wearer is in close contact with others. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said he believes the pandemic could be brought under control over the next four to eight weeks if 'we could get everybody to wear a mask right now.'" And then-- as Trump decided to cut billions from the CDC budget-- he announces on Fox that there will be no national mask mandate, in effect, not recovery from the pandemic until he's out of office.

The House passed legislation 2 months ago to aid Americans hard-pressed by the economic consequences of the pandemic. McConnell said they Senate will get to it when they get to it-- it hasn't-- and that what he comes up with will look nothing like what the House passed anyway. Trump, McConnell and their cronies in Congress have their own priority: shielding businesses that screw up from coronavirus-related lawsuits in state courts. McConnell and Trump have both said they will hold aid to working families hostage unless they get the shield fro their big campaign donors-- and that it has to be retroactive to December, 2019.

Last week, campaigning in Kentucky, McConnell lisped menacingly that any bill "must have, must... no bill will pass the Senate without liability protection for everyone related to the coronavirus... Nobody should have to face an epidemic of lawsuits on the heels of the pandemic that we already have related to the coronavirus."

It would prevent workers, for example, from suing over unsafe working conditions, something contributors to Republican campaigns are notorious for doing. Chuck Schumer called the Republicans' top priority a "liability shield for CEOs."




One more boneheaded reason for supported to abandon Trump between now and November? Writing for MSNBC.com, Steve Benen reported that The benefits for laid off workers created by last March's CARES Act, including enhanced unemployment insurance, "were temporary-- and they're due to expire this month. By refusing to act on the package the Democrats passed 2 months ago, the Republicans purposely guaranteed pain and suffering since it is too late to pass something that will keep people from going without a check. That, of course, was the point-- a vicious, poisonous bargaining chip for McConnell and chip. Trump wants a payroll tax and says it must be part of any package or-- he implies, he'll veto it.

it's a difficult position to take seriously, and it's worth appreciating why. Under the status quo, 6.2% of American workers' paychecks are deducted to help fund the Social Security system. When there's a payroll tax cut-- as there was during Barack Obama's first term as president-- that number is temporarily reduced as a way to put some extra money in every paycheck. The government makes up the difference, paying into the Social Security fund so benefits remain unaffected.

Trump has argued that the cut gets money into people's hands "quickly," and there's some truth to that: if the payroll tax were temporarily scrapped, every American worker's paycheck would have a little more money in it right away.

But there are also some downsides, too. As The Atlantic's Annie Lowrey has explained, a temporary payroll tax break tends to be small, insufficiently targeted, and largely meaningless to those who've lost their jobs and are no longer receiving paychecks. For Americans who rely on tips, or who've seen their hours cut, this policy also would offer very little.

What's more, as the Obama administration discovered nearly a decade ago, many Americans don't necessarily notice the small increases in their paychecks, so they don't feel like they have a little extra money in their pockets to spend, which diminishes the larger impact.

So why is Trump so adamant about this? No one really seems to know. Maybe he's confused; maybe he's getting some bad advice; or maybe he remains preoccupied with his political standing and sees this as a possible device for his re-election campaign.

Remember, Bloomberg News reported a few months ago that the president specifically told Republican senators that "he wants a payroll tax holiday through the November election so that taxes don't go back up before voters decide whether to return him to office."

In other words, Trump is threatening to derail an economic aid package at a key moment unless Congress gives him an unnecessary tax break that the president wants to use as a campaign talking point.

No good can come of this.

On Friday, Bernie and Andy Slavitt co-authored an OpEd for CNN about masks that approaches the pandemic problem very differently from the way the Trump regime does-- clearly and simply and constructively. "In the midst of this unprecedented global pandemic," they wrote, "it is clearer than ever that not only is health care a human right, but so too are the resources to protect your health and the health of your family and neighbors. That's why we are urgently calling for a simple, common-sense, practical and inexpensive way to protect Americans during the coronavirus pandemic: Masks for All. Our goal must be to make high-quality masks available on an equitable basis to every single person in this country at no cost. Next week, one of us will introduce legislation to do just that. The science is clear: Wearing a mask not only saves lives, but the widespread use of masks will get Americans back to work sooner and reunite families who have stayed apart. Hopefully, this legislation will even help counter some of the confusion and misinformation over mask-wearing... Unfortunately, it is absolutely clear that we cannot wait for this administration to take action. So, as a first step, the Masks for All legislation will instruct the Trump administration to acquire and deliver three high-quality, reusable masks to every person in the country with the best available designs that can be manufactured. They would be delivered via US mail, made available free locally at testing sites, post offices and pharmacies, as well as distributed in collaboration with state and local governments to homeless shelters, jails, detention centers and other congregate-care settings... We are all in this together. During World War II, factories across the country were given the opportunity to play a role in winning the war. Today, US manufacturers and workers could play an equivalent, vital role in winning the war against the pandemic, and ensuring a healthy society for all."